The following document embodies a series of principles that outline the tenets and beliefs of the red pill community. This article has been written with brevity and ease of reading in mind, links relevant to further discussion are given for each topic where available. The information herein is extensive, but by no means exhaustive. I hope to evolve this document year-on-year, adding additional depth and topics as time progresses.

2.) Feminism, Pity, Power & Privilege:

Feminists crave privileges which consolidate the realm of male power with that of the female. Typically they are traditionalist in ways which benefit women (men pay for dates, pressure to perform is squarely on men) but “progressive” where traditionalism would limit their power (intolerance for female promiscuity, a reluctance to trust women with leadership.)

This is achieved by glossing over the influence of feminine soft power in society (influence and charm), and comparing men and women solely in hard power (economic and political). In taking this highly one-sided approach to power, feminists play upon humanity’s propensity to take pity on women, and where the myth of female powerlessness is bought into, more power is redistributed to them.

Feminism is nothing more than a female supremacy movement posing as one of humanist egalitarianism. Feminism highlights female incompetence in areas where men excel, redefines them as injustices by blaming men for female ineptitude and then legally mandates the promotion of women within said areas. As such, women consistently make social gains in areas where men have traditionally dominated.

All the while women continue to quietly monopolise soft power. Because social influence (the female monopoly on pity as well as beauty) is difficult to quantify, its prominence is neither stated nor factored into measures of equality. And in case you think that ridiculous, feminists factor in things as benign as the economic value of housework, so not to do the same with female beauty or vulnerability is highly disingenuous if your goal is to economically quantify elements relevant to social equality.

Where the reverse occurred, where men monopolised hard power, we experienced 50~ years of social engineering to correct for the fact. The ability to be respected in spite of glaring vulnerability is a staggering albeit scarcely spoken of social advantage women enjoy, yet it is the pivotal psychological fulcrum on which feminism owes its modern ideological dominance.

Where the pendulum has swung too far in favour of women, a successful male counter movement has failed to materialise. Not solely because, but chiefly because pity is in short supply for men. A man seeking pity is despised for his weakness rather than helped because of it, and so the very psychological mechanism that gave birth to female economic and political power is nought but a dead-end for men.

3.) Women, Logic & Emotional Reasoning:

Women are irrational and inconsistent, they have a capacity for logic but they are not typically inclined to utilise it.Women must exert concentrated effort to be logical for it is not their factory setting, men on the other hand although imperfect have a far more pronounced affinity for logic. As such by matter of preference if not biology, men are near universally superior logicians and decision makers.

A logical woman is easily baited into becoming emotional; regardless of intellect, women are more likely to lose lucidity due to a stronger preference for emotive reasoning. It is by extension of this that we observe women to be more easily compromised in a line of reasoning than men. A woman’s decisions are based on her current emotional state, not logic. Once overwhelmed by the feeling of the moment and riding on a tidal wave of emotion, even if an awareness of what is fair and rational remains intact in a woman, she shall opt to ignore it in favour of indulging “what feels right.”

Ever witness a woman hear something reasonable, and in the indignation of her emotion declare “I don’t care!” before muttering something that makes no sense to anybody but her? This is a prime example of solipsism, the female propensity to “reason” with an inner emotional narrative that is all but impervious to outside influence. As such, women often behave erratically and in contradiction. Women are fickle, so a wise man watches how they behave and disregards what they say.

4.) Woman’s Manipulative Nature:

Women are Machiavellian by nature. In comparison to the average man, they are far more proficient in matters of persuasion andgeneral socialmanipulation. The theoretical evolutionary basis for this sex difference is that due to smaller body mass and inferior musculature, women evolved to attract and use men as tools rather than directly compete with them.

This makes the pronunciation of female strength a propensity to be mentally rather than physically violent. Physical violence is outlawed, whereas mental abuse is not, with a suppression of physical violence without an equal suppression of mental, women are at a social advantage.

The intolerance for physical violence coupled with the tolerance for mental violence is what allows women to bully and socially dominate without being held accountable by a system of law. Men are as such forced to learn to become as apt in mental violence as women, or face social disadvantage.

The law does not criminalise emotional violence against men. Where physical violence is illegal (but typically more so if it is male on female rather than female on male), emotional violence is a question of personal morality and therefore not legislated against. Where a man’s instinct is to hit, a woman’s is to make you miserable. Arguably, mental wounds can be just as crippling if not more so than physical. In summation, women tend to be more emotionally aggressive than men.

5.) Self-Limiting Genetic Determinism:

Your race/ethnicity does not matter if you are rich and/or successful. A lot of men are small-minded and stuck on the superficial, White, Black, Arab, Indian, Asian whatever, you have a certain perception of the world based upon the culture that dominates your racial/tribal background.

Non-whites in western countries are very conscious of their ethnic identity, and oft it is so that non-white men feel shame or anger over their lack of whiteness. Asians in particular, seem to glorify whiteness and perpetuate a culture of racial self-hatred. This “but I’ll never have it good because I’m not white” is a form of mental disease, an unproductive self-limiting belief that will hold you back and make you insecure.

Perhaps where you live the white man is a god, but know all racial barriers are overcome by power, for money is power. If you’re a 5’0 Asian with a little dick that girls laugh at, a big bank balance and confident attitude will offset that. You won’t get there being jealous/bitter towards whites and putting yourself down, internalised inferiority has to be quashed.

Focus less on racial self-deprecation, more on achievement. Men are judged predominantly on their station in life, a successful man is liked, an unsuccessful man isn’t. Racial insecurity will only hinder your chances at success by polluting your mindset, as such it must be banished by any means necessary. Be proud of your lineage, for you are powerless to change it.

6.) Hypergamy & Branch Swinging:

Female hypergamy is very binary in its approach to men, a man is either deemed superior, or inferior. If a woman believes a man inferior to her, he’s sexually invisible, only when a woman deems a man superior does he become visible.

Women want men who demonstrably exude power in a way that makes them feel inferior. When a woman feels inferior to a man, she is attracted to him. We call this hypergamy, a proclivity to date up and/or social climb. As an affectation of hypergamy, women are highly sensitive to signifiers of high status (good genes, wealth, confidence, popularity etc.)

Hypergamy can manifest in many ways, the best known is gold digging, dating a man solely because of his greater wealth. In less exploitative relationships, a woman dates a man who is more confident than she is. Generally, women low in confidence are less hypergamous, whilst egotistical women are more so.

Hypergamy breeds opportunism, if a man with higher status is sexually available, a woman with unchecked hypergamy will cheat. Should such a man be available for commitment, there’s a strong possibility she will abandon her man to pair off with him. This phenomenon is referred to as “branch swinging.”

Hypergamy not kept in check by a conservative upbringing and strong male family presence results in extremely opportunistic and disloyal women. In traditional societies, hypergamy is kept in check by the family, community and wider culture. Women are paired off with their male contemporaries rather than left to perpetually “wait for something better to come along.”

Some women are more hypergamous than others, but no woman is non-hypergamous. Think of it as a scale, some women are a little hypergamous, others extremely so. Hypergamy is like Pandora’s box, once it is indulged the tendency to continue indulging it is compelling. The more experienced a woman is, the more her hypergamy grows and so the less her relational desirability.

Women that make the best candidates for family and childrearing are those whose hypergamous instinct has been kept in check. Materialism and promiscuity are hypergamous behaviours, they’re indicative of a “constant need to upgrade,” which is hypergamy at its core. These kinds of women should be avoided for serious commitments, frugal, humble women are superior relationship prospects.

7.) The 80/20 Rule:

The 80/20 rule recognises that in a society of rampant hypergamy roughly 20% of the men are fucking 80% of the women. The 80/20 rule is simply “the pareto principle” applied to the realm of sexual strategy. Only in conservative pro-monogamy societies is each man guaranteed a wife within his relative social league. The 80/20 split is the natural order when family values break down and the rise of decadence takes hold.8.) The Hierarchy of Love:

Love is predicated on the satiation of feminine hypergamy. If a woman thinks she is better than you, she can’t respect you. And if she can’t respect you, she can’t love you.

Women love differently from men. Woman’s love is based on adoration, adoration is a combination of admiration and respect, respect is derived from power. Thus it follows that you must be powerful if you want to be loved, or you will never be loved. You will be held in contempt for being weak. And as per hypergamy, should you be deemed weaker, you will be deemed unlovable.

Women love pragmatically, they lack a capacity to love unconditionally for romantic partners, this love is reserved for their children. This behaviour is governed by an effect known as Briffault’s Law. Antithetically, men can love women unconditionally by merit of significant personal investment. There is a hierarchy of love: Men > Women > Children.

Women are more selfish than men in matters of money and love. Man’s love is expected to be sacrificial in nature, woman’s isn’t. Women love opportunistically, men love sacrificially.

Because women are prone to bouts of excessive emotionalism, they rely on men to be more emotionally resilient than they are. This is the need for a man to be steadfast under pressure, stoic, sometimes we refer to this as “holding frame.” As women are typically more indulgent of their emotional whims than are men, they implicitly look toward men as a stabilising force.

In this capacity, a man often acts as a means for a woman to process her emotions, a kind of pressure valve or “rock in the storm”; one who endures a woman’s oft excessive or otherwise disproportionate emotional reactions whilst remaining unaffected himself. Women’s emotionalism makes them cathartic in character, possessing a ceaseless need to disencumber themselves of mental distress.

The reverse is naturally inadvisable and ill met, a man who confides his weaknesses to a woman all but signs his own death sentence. Women require either aggressive action to reassure them, or stoic unwavering to calm them.

Because of this, men experiencing their own emotional distress elicit fear and disgust more than they do sympathy in women. This is particularly true of a woman accustomed to relying on the man who is hurting. And so to complain to a woman, no matter how earnestly nor passionately, is for a man to engage in an exercise of most profuse folly. Truly then it stands to reason that the indulgence and open sharing of emotion is a strictly feminine privilege, something a man cannot engage in should he wish to remain respectable to his woman.

When a woman realises a man is mentally strong enough to shoulder her problems on top of his, she will find this attractive. Women want men who can handle the problems that they can’t. There is a double standard, if you lean on a woman then the relationship begins falling apart, for a woman is ill-equipped to deal with her own problems, let alone a man’s.

This difference in emotional stability that is so intricately tied into the attraction mechanism explains why women are free to be emotionally indulgent to a point of selfishness, whilst men are comparatively restricted in the range of emotion they can express without weaving the thread of their own undoing.

If both parties are to indulge their emotions, there is no stability and thus no sustainable relationship. As women find it more difficult to be logical than men, the burden falls to men to suck it up and be the reasonable ones. Even where men falter in this endeavour, they at least attempt it. It’s not fair, but it’s what works.

10.) Female Visceral Revulsion:

Continuing from the last point, the feminine disgust for male weakness is a function of hypergamy. Women have little sympathy for weak men, despite the fairer sex nonsense you may be accustomed to hearing, it is strong men that are the backbone of any prosperous functioning society.

A man is far more likely than a woman to assist a man in emotional peril, for a man’s reaction to male weakness is not as pronounced as a woman’s. Men do despise effeminate men, but this is not the same as being disgusted by even minor indications of vulnerability. To be strong does not necessarily mean to be emotionally impervious, if there is anyone who will support a man through his darkest moments, it will in all likelihood be another man.

Women feel revulsion when observing male weakness and exploited when a man depends on them. Unlike men, women have no provider instinct; they are all too willing to rely, but greatly hesitant to be relied upon.

11.) Dominance & Boldness:

Always set boundaries with everyone, do not be a pushover. Cultivate a sense of fearless boldness. Men take more risks than women and are expected to do so by merit of being male.

Being fearful, unconfident and risk averse as a man leads to failure and disrespect from peers. Men must be confrontational and risk-taking when a situation calls for it, they cannot be passive or defer responsibility without losing esteem. As such, men are required to problem solve and deal with conflict in a way unexpected of women. Convenient, as men are better equipped to deal with such matters anyhow (see sections 3 and 9).

Women have a pronounced gender group bias, meaning they typically automatically side with other women in conflict regardless of the situation’s material facts.

Women are herdlike, cliquey and driven to monopolise group opinion. Once accepted by the group, they manoeuvre to use the power of the group to police opinions or behaviours deemed threatening to their standing. Typically this consists of the adoption of a false moral artifice, where a woman will decide what is and isn’t socially acceptable in the knowledge the larger group will support her attempts at control.

Women have a sexual plurality, if you are a nice guy with money, you are husband material. You get to sex her only after excessive wining and dining. You don’t create a spark of attraction, but she’s looking for safety and security and so she decides “he’ll do.”

On the other hand if you’re a man who sets out to assert rather than impress, you’re the man who gets to nail her within little time at all. You “create a spark,” you give her butterflies, you’re the lustful lover rather than the perfunctory provider, the alpha fucks, not the beta bucks.

14.) Low Tier Men:

Neither women nor society care about male weakness. As alluded to in section 6, low tier men are invisible to women as a function of hypergamy.

If you are weak, depressed, small, poor, uneducated, unconfident, or anything else that prevents you from being powerful, nobody will care about whether you live or die.

People only care about you when you’re powerful, or a woman. You have to pull yourself up by the bootstraps and become self-reliant because nobody else gives a fuck. You’re given a dichotomy, sink or swim; you sink, and you end up drowning yourself in failure and self-pity. If you swim and only if you swim, people will start taking notice.

Society will always have a safety net for women, for weakness is a function of femininity rather than a bug. White knights will come to the rescue, the state will provide welfare and other women are more than happy to side with her – all of this in spite of any success or remarkable accolades! A man of equal unworth is condemned, and rightly so. Whilst women can cruise without social ostracisation, men cannot. Fair it is not, but true it is all the same.

15.) Gynocentric Family Law:

In matters of law the courts always side with women. The law prioritises female well-being over logic, honour and justice. Family law is as such corrupt, contemporarily ruled in its decision-making by feminist dogma.

The constitutions equitable maxims have been rewritten by modern statutes which discriminate most violently against the rights of men per common law, Rollo Tomassi of Rational Male penned a relevant article on this topic which can be found here.
16.) Female Narcissism:

The stereotypical modern western woman is a self-entitled brat jumped up on feminist hogwash and social media attention. Hypergamy is exacerbated to a point of narcissism, inspiring average women to assume themselves special regardless of their objective lack of worth. It is the ideology they swallow and the excess attention they receive which fortifies this most profound narcissism.

Indeed much of the problem with contemporary female narcissism is the sheer gynocentrism of the culture we live in. Our cultural values are feminine values. Of course cultural values bear much the blame, but they do not shoulder it all.

Much of modern women’s narcissism has its root within the ever-growing legions of single mothers, romantically unsuccessful women who raise their daughters in such a man hating manner that their daughters can only view men negatively, each romantic mishap in the daughter’s life “I told you so’d” by her cynical mother.

Whether feminist-identifying or not, the values of feminism are the values of most modern women. The self-empowerment message and casual demonisation of the masculine runs deep.

Women are taught by culture and mother alike that they are the prize, that they as women are inherently good, much unlike the evil of men, who can never hope to repent for past grievances “their kind” inflicted upon women.

As such, women need not bother to impress, for women are beyond proving themselves, much unlike men, who cannot ever hope to impress nor prove themselves enough. And it is this degree of conceit coursing through the veins of western society which lies at the heart of not only the feminist ideology, but likewise the modern woman herself.

17.) Commitment Is More Valuable Than Sex:

Women need men more than men need women, and women hate this. Men want sex and at some point, a family. Women however seek masculine energy to stabilise their impulsivity, coveting paternal dominance and the sense of safety and stability that stoic rationalism lends. (See section 9.)

Just look at single mother households and older single women, they are miserable. Such women need a man to achieve even a semblance of happiness, but men often find these women to be the cause of nothing but misery. The words bachelor and spinster have opposing connotations for a reason, a man’s commitment is his prime commodity.

18.) Gatekeeping:

Men are the gatekeepers of commitment and women are the gatekeepers of sex. Women decide if sex will happen, but men decide if a relationship follows. Why is it this way? Simple supply and demand. Men covet sex more than women, whereas women covet relationships more than men. Male commitment to women is as valuable as sex is to men.

The kicker is, a woman need not necessarily trade sex for commitment. This is the implied contract, and mutually respectable arrangements are where women demand commitment for their sex, and men demand sex for their commitment. However, much like men who enjoy sex devoid commitment, women enjoy commitment devoid sex.

Where a woman can get commitment without giving sex, she shall “become friends” with a man. This is the friend zone, a purgatory where men willing to commit to a woman without any promise of sex from her in return go to slowly erode every last portion of their dignity.

This man is the male equivalent of a slut because much like promiscuous women lower the price of sex, a sexless yet committed man lowers the price of commitment.

19.) The Wall: Men Appreciate, Women Depreciate:

Women are depreciating assets, their major asset and unique selling point is in their beauty and fertility. Most squander their prime, engaging in casual sex with a carousel of men met in recurring dazes of substance-fuelled hedonism. This is what passes for female empowerment.

Thinking the party will never end, such women spend the bulk of their twenties being generally infantile, loutish and irresponsible, believing they have all the time in the world “to settle down.”

Then circa age thirty a strange thing happens, a woman’s looks begin to noticeably decline, every wrinkle eroding the allure and power she is accustomed to. This is only exacerbated by years of debauchery and substance abuse, combine this with poor nutrition from a lack of culinary ability and the modern woman is prone to premature ageing.

It is only with this erosion of power in a woman’s life that a shift in priorities takes hold, such women scramble in desperation to find a man to settle down with, often settling for men they would not give a look but a few short years before.

Men on the other hand are beginning to acquire more power than they had in their twenties around this age, becoming only further attractive. A woman burns brightly in youth but extinguishes quickly with age. Time is much kinder to men, permitting them to age more like wine rather than milk. This is why it is taboo to ask a woman her age, whilst men bear no such sensitivity over the issue.

20.) Men Are Made, Women Are Born

Women are born, a woman is just a girl who can conceive children. There is no challenge, mental, spiritual or otherwise that distinguishes a girl from a woman, nothing other than age makes this distinction. And thus it is so that whilst we hear chatter of what constitutes manliness, that a hated man is a boy whilst an admired man is “a real man”, we hear no such rhetoric in regards to womanliness.

Unlike womanhood, there are barriers to manhood which transcend age and they embody qualities and characteristics which men as a collective respect and aspire to. Things like fearlessness, confidence, bravery, strength and honour. Unlike women, men are not born, they are created. Pain, poverty, difficulty and heartache, these are the things that make men out of boys.

Conflict and pain is what forges the masculine mindset, a boy cannot grow into a man without conflict and retrospectively analysing his mistakes. A man is the embodiment of experience and difficulty, comfort but the entropy of a boy’s most visceral pursuit to develop his masculinity.

Men need to apply logic to the pain endured in their lives in order to become powerful enough to transcend boyhood. Men are not born because comfort doesn’t breed men, men are bred in the fields of bloody battle, be it a war of economy, psychology, violence, or a combination of such.

A man is a soldier of differing kinds, an individual that has learnt to repress fear and hone the adrenaline it elicits to evolve. This is the spirit of “manning up”, all this the process necessary to become someone worthy of the mighty majesty the word “man” demands.

21.) Single Mothers Breed Weak Men:

Single mothers are ill-equipped to breed men, and overwhelmingly lack the tools necessary to give a boy the guidance he needs to reach a higher stage of male development. Boys don’t meet their potential, they are poorly disciplined and have little sense of purpose or life direction. Poor discipline breeds low confidence and passivity, qualities which are inherently anti-charismatic in nature and hence deleterious to a man’s romantic chances.

Social market value is everything, something a low-value man says deemed “creepy” is “flirty” or “sexy” when spoken by a high value man. A man must as such focus on maintaining his physical appearance to the highest possible standard. This will make his life easier in areas not just confined to sexuality, but likewise in the social and financial. The better looking one is, the more positively they are perceived. This bias for the attractive we all instinctively share is described by a phenomenon known as the halo effect.

23.) Testosterone & Health:

Your diet and exercise place a certain handicap on your ability to fully utilise your potential. The obese, ill-rested and ill-nourished are typically low in energy and thus highly unproductive. Such people are not in a mental state conducive to achievement, for they are ruled by lethargy.

Procrastination is the slow-acting poison of an individual living a sedentary life. Physically active people get things done. Exercise is not only invigorating in the moment, but will grant lasting higher energy levels as a side effect. As such, regular physical activity and good diet are necessary, not optional.

Maintain high natural testosterone levels by consuming saturated fat and getting eight hours of uninterrupted sleep nightly. Train by performing heavy compound lifts, the squat, deadlift and bench press at least three times a week. Give yourself a recovery day between every training session. If you need help as a beginner, Mark Rippetoe’s book “Starting Strength” is a popular introduction to weightlifting.

A man must take care of his body in order to potentiate his mind, higher testosterone will enhance cognition, increase confidence and increase energy levels.

And can we really blame young men from opting out of a race with odds that are insurmountably stacked against them? Of course not! The political correctness that inevitably goes hand in hand with feminism is enough to disenchant, demotivate and emasculate any hopeful, vibrant young man. Modern academia is simply not an environment that is conducive to the spiritual well-being of men, progressive social engineering all but deleterious to the modern man’s mental health.

If you’re male, in education and you find the whole ordeal to be psychologically taxing, it’s time to consider learning a trade or skill that will allow you to freelance or start a business. Financial freedom not only teaches confidence, but it allows a man to escape the henpecking pervasive amongst the politically correct culture of the corporate world. In industries where extreme talent or risk are necessary such as engineering or construction, women are scarce in number and so refuge from misandry can be found there.

Many trades are male dominated (such as mechanics, electricians, plumbers etc) so these fields are great areas to go into if you want to avoid negative female influences in the workplace. Of course as work is necessary for most to make a living, financial independence is required to become a fully actualised man. Men who undertake entrepreneurship or work in male-dominated fields fare better than those in the corporate world; they enjoy the luxury of not needing to repress their masculinity, as the fear of losing their job for “being too boisterous” is not a worry. Corporate attitudes toward masculinity unfortunately mirror that of academia’s.

25.) Why Women Covet Male Friendship:

Women want male friends because they’re better company. More interesting, more entertaining, less crazy, less annoying – all of that good stuff. Likewise, they know if they’re pretty they can leverage that into favour whilst giving you nothing, so this is the scam most even moderately pretty women are working.

Men want to be friends with women because they are stupid and think friendship is the first stepping stone to sex. Women profit from this false belief because men waste time, passion and energy on an endeavour which yields nothing but hassle in return. As such when a man figures out friendship is not the path to getting laid, he ceases to see the point in having female friends.

Even though a man’s friendship is worth more than a woman’s, women won’t trade sex for it because being likeable doesn’t make you fuckable. Women have the opposite problem, they are fuckable rather than likeable. Men have to work to be fuckable, women have to work to be likeable.

But a woman is only concerned with her own needs, not yours. Just like men will gladly use up a woman sexually, women will gladly use up men emotionally and financially. A woman is all too happy to devour your time, using you as a source of entertainment and conduit for complaint all whilst giving you nothing in return. This is a bad deal for a man because his company is infinitely higher quality, and thus more valuable than hers. In 99% of cases this means if you’re hanging out with a woman you’re not fucking, you’re getting a bad deal.

Legitimate female friends, women you find unattractive and are interesting are rare, because most women have no personality. Their personality basic, based on gossip. This is most women; the epitome of boring. Most women never become more than their sexuality because they don’t need to evolve beyond that to be successful. This is why the vast majority of women make no effort to be funny or interesting, and so if you want quality friendship, you look for it among men.

If you are ever in a situation where you’re stuck with women and bored out of your mind (you will be) the best way to make things interesting is to mock them. The only way women become interesting is if you tease them, call them out and be generally combative. Otherwise you’ll be bored, asking yourself why you’re with a gaggle of women when you’d have more fun reading the world’s least interesting book.

Constitutional Amendments:

16th March 2014
– Additions to section 15 and 27.

5th May 2014
– Typos/grammar, swapped 9 and 10 round.

7th November 2014 – Overhaul to celebrate a year of Illimitable Men!– Some sections increased in detail, some shortened.– Added sections 28 and 29.

8th November 2014
– Fixed some typos, amended section 27 per the recommendation of /u/Locaster

31st October 2015 – Massive overhaul to celebrate two years of Illimitable Men!
– Document has grown by an additional 2,000 words
– Prose enhanced to improve readability, grammar and format.
– Expanded various sections and merged some together

If you spotted a mistake in the prose, please do point it out. If you have suggestions for minor revisions or future additions, feel free to leave them in the comments.

While the Red Pill philosophy certainly brings to light many truths — and problems — I don’t see it offering much of a solution.

I’ve never quite understood how a society gets to be the way it is, and how to change it.

In my own life, I’ve created and strived for a new paradigm: Have compassion for ugly women, have compassion for ugly men, have compassion for “weaker” men, have compassion for everyone.

Why can’t a new breed of preachers and teachers rise up to teach this to people, including women and girls ?

Also, I think this constitution puts a lot of emphasis on the worldly and on worldly power for men. Alexander the Great conquered the known world — but where did it get him ? His body is now in the same state as the lowest peasant — decayed in the ground.

My main concern though is the sort of “is what it is” mentality regarding injustice. You say that the courts are unfair to men, that it’s not fair, but it just is. My reaction is that if something is not fair, or good, or right, or just, it is unacceptable and must be overturned. Why don’t others feel the same ?

Also, deep down I feel a hatred for who women are. Because even the most saintly women who renounce the world and become nuns etc are really not all that nice.

What tortures me is the need in my penis for a young hot woman’s body and beauty, whilst inwardly disliking many aspects of said women’s personalities, and wishing they’d change or grow into something better.

To be fair, many men are jerks and liars and deceivers, which I also dislike.

Things do not get fixed, as he explained in the article, because of feminism. It is pervasive and it is insidious. It is the same reason that over half of America is on welfare and will only increase, but not decreased, thus resulting in more Democrats which is the root of all evil. It is the enslavement and eradication of modern man. You cannot stop it.

All right, the world may be unfair to men. But is it fair to women?
I am a woman, obviously. As you will see by the illogicity of my thought. Anyway, I can’t help but feel that you guys have it easier, brighter, more pleasurable. You just covet young females, right? They are not hard to find.

My deepest desire is much more unattainable, crazy and possibly delusional. I want a man I like to like me enough that he chooses to spend his life with me and put his ego to bed. I would do the same. No cheating, no emotional blackmailing, no disloyalty, just plain old stick with each other and carry on until death tears us apart. But see, we (females) are taught that this is exactly what turns men off.

This document is obscene, hateful and ignorant. And I say this having myself struggled with many of these theories. I have thought of them myself long before I even knew a movement like this existed, because our society is so imbued with hatred towards women (as you yourself have admitted to) you just have to grow up in it to start thinking like that, even to your own detriment.

I don’t think that rational thought in itself is masculine, but our society has been run by men (on the surface at least, but surface does matter) for so long, it seeped into the language we use to communicate with each other, and as a result, being a woman is like having an antenna stuck in your head that works (contrarily to popular belief) perfectly well – against you. Telling you you are not enough, not young enough, not pretty enough, not smart enough, not valuable enough… Telling you other women are enemies or useless and that you need a man otherwise you are a failure but at the same time won’t succeed at keeping a man because he will always leave you for some younger “slut” (female who only seeks sex from him)… Telling you you should have been born a man. Yes sir, some women might lash at me for this one but it’s true that many of us feel guilty or robbed for being a woman, and if we could choose… What would you choose, men? Be honest.

The worst part is where it goes: -Women are born such, because a woman is just something to inpregnate to generate more valuable males and other growboxes to match them.
Women are most especially required to develop an identity nowadays, AND a philosophy to cope with the absurdity they find themselves in. And not because they weren’t capable of doing it in the past. Being a man is easy in our culture. You have plenty of literature if you need role models – or just models (of thought). Being a woman is much more hard a task because it’s a mystery what a woman is and the categories through which we can understand ourselves have been shaped in a man-oriented culture.

What really bugs me about this movement is that it claims to be progressive, or maybe I’m misguided, perhaps these guys realize (I’d hope so) they are just a conservative reaction bound to be swept away in time, much like the Ku Klux Klan or the Westboro Baptist Church.

I am sorry if my words are unforgiving. I love men. I also hate them sometimes, that is, when I see them try to push women down. But I don’t dwell on hate and I try to see the best in everyone. Reading this document hurt me, and again, not because I hadn’t thought of these matters myself, quite the contrary. I might even say that they have haunted me and still haunt me when I think about life and its meaning. So I won’t dismiss some of these theories as stupid. But what should I make of a statement such as “women are machiavellic by nature”? Especially when “The Prince” was written by a man, dedicated to a man, and described men a lot more than women? And besides, is it not Machiavelli in you avatar box, Mr. Illimitable Men?

One last thought- sometimes I despise women as well. Especially when I see them walk around on shoes that fuck up their spines or wearing bras as if they made them prettier or stuffing their breasts and face with silicon, or advertising their bodies on social media… But I don’t demonize them for trying to fit in because it’s a constant struggle for those who don’t and society wouldn’t exist if we were all rebels.

Just have to say — very interesting comment. I’d love to dig a little deeper, b/c I liked some of the things you said earlier in your post (about loyalty, in particular) that I have found through my experience to be rare in women. You seem like maybe the rare woman who understands and lives by a code of honor, by loyalty. I’m guessing you have a strong father whom you have a good relationship with?

Most women I’ve dated are hypergamous x 1000, they are only as loyal as long as you are their best option. Unashemedly so, now that feminism is the dominant ideology of young women. Regarding your other points about being a woman and feeling not good enough — men go through the same thing, as Illimitable man articulates. I find a lot of truth in his writing.

Your words resonated in my mind like.you were reading my thoughts the whole time. I felt like this article was not only very true and comprehensive, but lacking the other side: the women side. I’m a man and the :”would you prefer being a man or a woman?” question hit me like a train. Lets put it in an order: 1. blue pill man. 2. Woman. 3.Red pill man.
The idea that being able to overcome a state “the blue pill” has completely change my view. It is known that life is meaningless. But the very challenge overcoming. “The bluepill state” is at first a burden, but now I see it as a blessing

What tortures me is the need in my penis for a young hot woman’s body and beauty, whilst inwardly disliking many aspects of said women’s personalities, and wishing they’d change or grow into something better.

Read some Nietzsche, and you’ll understand. You have the mentality of the lamb (bitter beta), resentful of the eagle (the alpha, and his obliviousness to the ruthlessness of hypergamy and human biology at large). Overturning the system is not an option… it would simply be a perverse disavowal of power.

Compassion is a weak and reactionary constitution – fundamentally feminine, if you will.

I’d urge you to get familiar with Nietzsche’s master/slave (lamb/eagle) dichotomy. A brilliant introduction to this is Gilles Deleuzes’s book ‘Nietsche and Philosophy’. The master (alpha), you will discover, is a decidedly ‘active’ force – he constructs his own value system, and is free to actualize his personal potential in every way that counts.

The slave, on the other hand, is necessarily ‘reactive’. His whole life, his every action, is one big impoverished ‘reaction’ to the supreme forces that have render him powerless. He becomes a figure of resentment, and decries the system to all who listen.

The modern male has two options, as far as I see it: 1. Do everything in your power to increase your standing in life (directly proportionate to one’s SMV) and be creative and productive enough to turn the system to your own advantage, or 2. Die a slave (even if it’s a admirably insurgent one).

Also strongly agree on point 14. I think it should be further underlined, however, that society doesn’t give much of a shit about ugly women either. The only women receiving the attention of white knights will be those that have some modicum of attractiveness. The leavings of women are in the same pit as undesirable men.

I’m a woman. I stumbled upon your feminism articles yesterday by accident, as I have an active interest in rewiring my brain from years of feminist indoctrination for two reasons: my own well-being, including my need to be intellectually honest, and to give proper employment to my “agency” nature.

Feminism has become my new ideology to dismantle in order to arrive at truth. Neo-liberalism (formerly known as Marxism) was my previous pet project, and was quite an adventure as I had been a hardline Leftist and feminist for 18+ years.

Motherhood changed that. I now see it for what it is. One huge fermenting deception.

As a mother, I want my children to know the truth about neo-liberalism as well as the poison that is feminism. These things are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

I babble.

I love your writings on feminism. You are without a doubt correct. And it takes a strong woman, an independent thinker unafraid to break free from the pack, to understand why the lies she’s been told are such, what forces and outcomes are really in play, and to boldly seek the truth without shame.

Groupthink amongst feminists is a powerful and destructive animal that deserves to be shot dead.

I can’t say that I’ve experienced the same thing at all. My experience has been exactly the opposite. If your current life role is satisfying to you, that’s great! Attempting that role was hellish for me…it rang false. One of the things that makes life interesting is that we’re all different, and that’s a good thing. This Red Pill author reacts in an extremely emotional manner towards the modern woman– he is angry, resentful, wanting to set limitations to control her–and he has the right to his opinion. However, that does not make him right….just right for him. If he enjoys seeing women like this, then hopefully he has/will find a woman that shares his values. My husband specifically cited my logical mind, business sense, and productivity as why he fell in love with me. I was the opposite of all his other female partners (interestingly, women that the author espouses as being the “right” kind of women). I’m a go-getter with which he could share the challenges of achieving his/our goals….and the only one that he married. I respect and admire him for who and what he is.

Your compatibility with your spouse doesn’t provide a broad-band summation to counter the author’s validity in his claims.

There is not much evidence to support your statements (especially anger) in regards to the germane topic at hand in this post.

Essentially the female poster before you (Celeste Elisabeth) is the closest thing to an example of what is being cited and combated.

This isn’t a gender we all face or some kind of “problem woman” than needs control. It is a social (government) agenda and a mentality.

There is an inherent futility in combating an idea. (i.e. “terrorism”)
You can kill off droves of people with a malfeasance and it will not stop the actual problem.

The only true weapon against such vulgar practices like prostitution (The American female today) and exploitation of the male gender is knowledge and truth.

You can be a serpent of a swindler but if I am aware and in the know.. every second you spend attempting to deceive or tempt me is entirely wasted. (I speak this as a neutral example such as a used car salesman) [note the lack of gender correction ‘salesperson’ on a derogatory remark? I wonder why is that??]

Anyhow more to my point, what is being cited is a real and actual thing. It isn’t a gender or a person or group of people. It is merely a configuration of thinking. One which is wholly wanton and destructive towards what we would consider functioning civilization.

Celeste was spot on with neo-liberal being marxist in nature. As well the third-wave feminist is nothing short of programmed and willed.

This isn’t some enlightened position that they WORKED TOWARDS with a life long wisdom earned with failure and lesson… in fact half these women are under 30… what wisdom is there in a 20-something? If you claim there is, then you certainly aren’t far enough down the road to know how vast our insignificance is.

Simply put, Feminism is tantamount to terrorism or any agenda that has a set path by an unknown initiator.

In short, this post and what is pertains to are byproducts of a much larger component on the chess board.

So I find it difficult to empathize with your sentiments about what a great catch you are and how that alone counters this entire philosophy b/c of your spouse’s reasons for marrying you.

The bottom line is that you and your attributes or the women you condescended and their attributes… you’re all cars. Telling me your car has a CD player and theirs doesn’t has nothing to do with the main fact here. Pollution. ALL cars do that. (To wax analogous on the topic)

My sister gave me the absolute best advice to re-align my thinking with dating women.

“Listen, all women have a vagina. Find one with a solid head on her shoulders”

And this doesn’t mean a driven independent career minded woman. This means a woman who wouldn’t need me to write this post in explaining the obvious. Not because of some exceptional intelligence, merely because she chooses to shuck the facade and adhere to truth and honesty.

They do exist. I prodded the founding partner of this concept into admitting that when I challenged his AWIAW thinking. He did admit there are outliers but he had specific reasons to treat his thinking with the conduct of AWIAW.

The fact is, hot, ugly, poor, wealthy, dependent, independent. Old young. Smart Dumb… you all have one thing in common. Using your sexuality as a means of survival. EVERY woman I’ve met, talked to, dated or otherwise observed has carried this trait. If I had to mathematically project, I’d say at least 85% to 90% of women in the USA are of this mentality.

The USE the fact that men are driven to sleep with them as a means to accomplish a goal. It may NEVER involve actual sex but to me this is STILL prostitution.
Period.

A woman who considers her sexual value as a tangible item inequal to the opposite sex makes a prostitute of herself. There’s no way around that.

Nobody is giving me special treatment because I have a dick and can screw… Good or bad.

Women inherently receive this treatment unsolicited AND they welcome it.

I know 1 woman of let’s say approx 250 that refutes this mentality and will never accept being handled in that manner. Even if it is in her favor. She never considers sharing a bed with a man a source of debt for him…

Just let a lot of what I typed seep in before responding because I have a TON of things to back this…

One I will leave with you just as a single example:

Go to ANY dating site.

Read 25 women’s profiles.
22 of them will say “Sorry no men under 5’8″ or 6’1” etc.

Read 25 men’s profiles. NONE of them (maybe one, because there’s always that one asshole) will say “You must be under 120 lbs”

There’s no script or posting rules on POF, Ok Cupid, Match, tinder, etc. that says only women can be crass and shallow…

That double standard biased way of thinking that both sexes practice on these sites unknowingly and willfully.??? A prime 100% smoking gun proof of what I speak of.

I wonder how many dates I would get with a profile of
“No fat chicks”

but women get 1,000s of emails with

“You can’t be broke and no short guys”

Absurd and for you not to at least acknowledge this fact rather than try to refute it is disgusting because if you’re over 32 you bet your ass you were alive when it was not NEARLY this bad in the USA. There was at least PRETEND equality.

Another Woman here, even if its a very young one in this case. I stumbled upon your blog when i researched the dark triad. I have high narcissism and machiavellianism that have been confirmed by a psychologist friend of mine in Germany.
I definitely agree with you concerning women, but you do have to hold in mind that this does not apply to every women. 98% of us definitely. But there are those few women, especially those with dark triad, sociopathy/etc that are different and function in a different way.
I like your writing style.

Yes. The women-related points are a set of generalisations that apply to the majority of women in differing levels of severity. Essentially, women fall on a spectrum of which each generalisations applies. Obviously, dark triad women are atypical outliers, amplifying some typical traits whilst being almost completely devoid of others. If you haven’t already, I recommend reading this piece on dark triad women:

Unfortunately due to feminism, mainstream academic psychology is too bitch-scared to do the necessary research on female psychopaths and likes to characterise dark triad behaviour as a predominantly male phenomenon.

man this just hit home. I’m a male 24 years old and my mother is a selfish person who used her children for rent money, meal tickets and nearly drowned one of my sisters and a couple feminists I tried conversing this with said she’s just acting on male taught characteristics and I was furious because thats completely ignoring the fact that she is psycho/sociopathic, bi-polar, and extremely pro-efficient in damaging someone with out showing scars then turning around emotionally instantaneously to cover up. (she’s ex military btw) but I haven’t seen her in years and i wish the same to my sisters where ever they are.

thank you for posting this article and researching for this site, this helped me more than you know

I am new to the red pill. A coworker whom I share visual appreciation of office workers with, introduced me to it… I do like the discipline and organization of the entire concept/philosophy and the methodology upon which the core members seem to operate is quite sound. I do have a few objections to some of the presumptions about women that these commandments [if you will] are grounded in. I see a lot of evaluation of psyche, both male and female. Not just one side. This is a good thing to see. I also admire the truly scientific and logical methods used to derive conclusion. The thing I see missing is the environment. It is a bit of a vacuum seeing the makeup of women based on USA population knowledge. A European woman is nearly diametrically opposed to an American woman by way of disposition, practice and drive. Appearance is even different just at a glance. Granted there will be things germane to women at large that are ever present. I do not deny this. I just do not think that 100% of all women alive on earth totally can be fit into this one size fits all way of calculating any tactics or what have you in regards to men’s position in the given society.

I think that this site and it’s concepts greatly apply to men in the united states that are currently in pursuit of an LTR w/ a US female. If you’re that guy, this site is your wakeup call. Further even if you manage to find one of those 5% out there that could qualify as LTR obtainable, the ENVIRONMENT does not support such an endeavor. The US culture, government and economy is not congruent to the nuclear family anymore. There is also the convenience of technology which makes unaccountable wrong doings FAR easier to commit than before. Women who’d be assholes if they knew they could get away with it now can….

I am not saying that women outside of the US are nearly perfect. They are simply much more honest with THEMSELVES and people they involve in relationships. They are also more mature and vanity is not as rampant out there. They look for much more than “stability” in a man as well. They live a much more realistic life and if you ever go to places like Europe you will see they do not have 4,000 ~ 20,000 sq ft houses. They don’t have 4 cars, etc.. Material gain is not what drives those countries populations. They are not a consumer based capitalist society. This is a MAJOR influence on how applicable the red pill mentality really would be, broad band… If I engage in congress with a European woman, I will at least know what I am getting into up front. At least much more than here in the states.

I am a musician and perhaps that is my handicap or rose colored lens from the take of a die hard alpha dedicated red pill disciple. But being one, I have access to something that is just as profound as the wakeup call red pill offers. I am also willing to bet that more Alphas meet with success in here than Betas, another thing to support that it isn’t a one size fits all. Some of the Machiavelli actions suggested may not be as easily executed to a textbook Beta. Look I am 5’10” and can’t really run well. I don’t think any amount of reading will help my basketball game. Some things mentally are equally restrictive to some. This is certainly a great place to start if you are headed towards being jaded. I just can’t ignore the other half of the equation.

You invite falling victim of being no different or better than those gold digging male hating feminist wrong do’ers that are cited here. I can say that attractive women, since they are catered to (see Joe Rogan) their whole life, are going to just develop a lack of compassion or tolerance towards contributing in a relationship. “Men kiss my ass. If you put that 800lb weight down to breathe I am outta here because there’s 5 other guys willing to hold it for me.” Those bitches (yes bitches) are missing a LOT of what they could have in life and in relationships. Every hot woman I’ve been with and had, always started about how unhappy they were and complained about men in their life… They will NEVER be content. The grass is perpetually greener and they have no self identity. It is handed to them by society. It’s like they’re a taxi driver and when a fare hops in, they do not provide a destination… that is MOST of them at least. So they are basically the place they live in. They are the man they are with.. True sharks.. Live only to swim and eat… A stomach with eyes.. however you want to wax metaphor on it…

I have seen exceptions and I have seen women who are attractive, maybe not a 10 but I am not close to a 10 either… that really do defy the composition cited here.

I guess I am only posting to give pause to taking ALL of this on full charge across the board. A jaded, one track, set-in-ways male is no better than a snide, manipulative, deceitful woman.

I am going to leave everyone with this poem from Kahlil Gibran:
It’s extracted from “The Prophet” the portion about love. This is only a small bit of it.

“…But if in your fear you would seek only love’s peace and love’s pleasure, then it is better for you that you cover your nakedness and pass out of love’s threshing-floor, into the seasonless world where you shall laugh, but not all of your laughter, and weep, but not all of your tears.
Love gives naught but itself and takes naught but from itself. Love possesses not nor would it be possessed; For love is sufficient unto love.”

This part specifically:
into the seasonless world where you shall laugh, but not all of your laughter, and weep, but not all of your tears.

Don’t sell yourself short. Don’t half live a life. Someone once said “I cannot love because I can be hurt or wronged.” I replied promptly.. “You shouldn’t try to live either, you run the risk of dying.”

Look I get the whole “Be someone or be somebody’s fool” and truly (especially in business and financial success) there is much to be had about a lot of what goes on with the red pill. But if we are being truly scientific, we all know that nothing is absolute and everything is infinite. Therefore it would be impossible to conclude that mathematically every person you encounter will apply to these factors. There are do’s and don’ts that apply to everyone for certain simply to mitigate risk. There are, however, outliers to any categorical group.

If any of this is offensive it should not be. If the pill’s position is sound then it can withstand debate. Further, as I stated I am new and there is probably a lot I haven’t seen or read yet that may include what I’ve mentioned.. who knows..

Wow that was one really good comment. I’m impressed by your knowledge and philosophical deep thoughts and you are absolutely right. Being a European woman and having lived in America for quite some time I can confirm all of what you have said. When I lived in America I was shocked by the amount of cars people had. 4 cars for a family? Really? Why do your kids each need a car? Why not use public transportation? OH! Right cause there is none!
I really appreciate your opinion thank you!
Emma

KM, this is a good comment. I think your blind spot, which is the part of the red pill that you don’t see eye to eye with is a misinterpretation on your part.

All women are women aka AWALT. They are whiny, manipulative, make excuses, look for the easy way out if everything, self absorbed, ect. The difference between western women and the rest of the world is the degree these traits are tolerated.

For instance, my girlfriend is from Russia and her mother is old school Russian. Feminism never occurred to her, let alone dominated her psyche. At the same time, solipsism….self absorption dominates her life the same way an attractive western girl with her iPhone would minus the technology. The difference is, the culture doesn’t put up with her female bullshit. The western world used to be this way too. The difference now is that feminism and cultural Marxism has enabled this behavior and amplified it. There is no restraint on female impulses. Hypergamy and solipsism dominate society and men have to conform to the irrational world of women rather than women conforming to the rational world of men.

Didn’t God create and doesn’t He love all men (whether they are alphas or betas)? Didn’t He create ugly women and ugly men too ? There seems to be an underlying overemphasis on male strength, female beauty, etc etc. Maybe the next pill we take should be one that tries to look beyond the external, the superficial, and the transitory.

That being said, the Red Pill constitution definitely brings to light a number of realities, problems, and social ills.

But what is the solution ? How, for instance, do we reform the court system to make it more fair ?

Also, I notice a tendency to dismiss certain injustices as if there is nothing that can be done about them. What’s the solution ? Personally, I have more disdain for a woman who emotionally abuses a man repeatedly, than for a man who physically hits a woman one time. (Though both are wrong).

Similarly, I have more disdain for an employer who uses me, manipulates me, lies to me, breaks promises of bonuses and raises to me, and who rips me off for years, while basically holding a figurative gun to my head….then I do for some thug who breaks into my house once, points a gun at me once, and runs off with $100 never to return.

People need a change in perspective and awareness, and The Red Pill philosophy helps with this.

But what’s the solution to the problem? How do we change it ?
Perhaps Men as a whole need to start acting as a United front, demanding their rights and justice, not just going their own way.

When people unite into an organized movement, that’s how change occurs. It’s how workers won workplace safety standards and pensions, how women won the right to vote, how blacks got civil rights.

Every social change, good or bad, demands a United movement.

Going our own way isn’t enough

Maybe men should march on Washington to demand, for instance, justice in the divorce courts… rather than just sucking it up and going their own way.

Absent minded:
Absolutely. In fact I really was going to get into WHY the difference but it was a long post already so I left it out. I am in complete agreement but to a degree if you measure these women side by side there is without a doubt a % of difference in the area of AWIAW.
(A woman is a woman)

I think someone in the founding members commented that indeed there is the 2% outliers but there’s no way to filter properly so you have to adopt a methodology that takes into account you’re going to be dealing with the 98%.

“Finding the 2″% in other words is too time consuming and uncertain.
My point was just that they do exist.

Hello, KM. I know you wrote this comment awhile back but I can understand where your coming from. But you tackle a deep economic social problem that we have in America that most people don’t understand or even care to. My mom is German and my dad is American and so I get the luxury of having families in both countries so I get to travel between both frequently and its always been a blast.

One thing I noticed, touching on what you said about material wealth etc is that Germans(Europeans) have more of a community. You don’t really understand it until you actually been over there a couple times or even once but they have festivals and people actually physically get out of their houses and socialize. All my family in Germany has a Facebook but barely posts anything on it and has a few pictures. Whats interesting is I look at my American family/friends and their Facebook is littered with photos and people are constantly updating their posts and generally obsessed with it to the point where its annoying. What I’m getting at is we LACK real community over here. Our community is loose and almost non-existent. Online dating and social media feeds into the American culture perfectly because its all based pretty much on Narcissism, greed and superficiality and it reiterates this ME ME ME culture.

And of course this spills into dating so you have woman that are just swirling in the chaos. Ive dated a couple German woman and nobody is perfect and I’m not saying that all woman are bad here as they are good and bad woman everywhere. But its so easy for a female here to fall in this trap as their culture allows it and the females here are just going through the motions. I felt that the woman that I dated in Germany were much more down to earth, they were highly confident in their sexuality and they didn’t even mind paying for their own things and dates. I felt that alot of females were much more independent and I find that very attractive. Also, they knew how to cook and clean like you couldn’t even imagine. Plus most were up to date on current events and all had interesting conversations. I think woman in Europe understand what equality of genders truly is.

I just think we live in a poisonous environment here in America. Its all about money and greed. People are getting depressed over it (We have the highest depression in the world) Its our system that is causing it. And sadly, anybody that rejects this or resists is just called a loser.

My thoughts exactly. What is said on this blog is true most of the time but some points should be watered down for Europe. We are indeed not extremely materialistic here, a stable job and decent lodgings will do to find you a long term partner.

I even know couples where the woman is the bread winner, where the woman is older ( a couple I know, guy is 28, woman 40, not married, one child), where the woman is the most intelligent. Everything goes well.

Hypergamy and Alpha rules still apply but to a lesser degree, I think you can go farther into intellectual conversations than in the US without crossing the friend-zone line. I think gender equality is more in our mores than in America. In fact, some red pill advice would be viewed, if applied, as extremely offensive to European women, like paying for everything while going out, the European woman would likely feel treated like an irresponsible child and would tell you that you have no respect for women before dumping you.

America seems an insane country from across the pond honestly, as you said everything gravitates around money and sex. Albert Einstein said that American men were the ” toy dogs of the other sex”. The stuff about engagement rings sounds almost unbelievable to me. The impression I get is that the average American woman is like the typical bitc*h here. Surely the catholic heritage plays a role in that. We place more value on abstract things.

Yeah I’ve never been known for being succinct. I am usually quite verbose however I did state throughout that I was new to red pill so yes indeed I will have blind spots. In fact, really I just spewed some redundancy.. Red pill at least seems to acknowledge that all women are not the same but I will need some concrete convincing that taking some genetically bound common denominators that all women share, be they good or bad women and using that to coat the overall summation of her.. It’s like saying all men have a penis therefore every man is a rapist… I just can’t think like that… Sure they ALL DO have them… but I think we can safely say on statistic alone that we all do not force ourselves on women… I am only crying out against the majority factor because this line of absolute thinking isn’t much different than a Marxist agenda. It’s just less obvious to the person thinking it because it has a shroud of logic to enable it.

I will not disagree with one of these cogent posts. They are spot on about the US and the whole “since Gore” PC agenda Marxist oversensitivity without cause agenda is repulsive and I need not a gender bias to champion my disgust with it all…

The majority allows the “safety first” line of thinking to ring true but I will never dismiss the precious few to whom this will never apply. “female bullshit” fits only bullshit women.. not them all.. I get the Chris Rock humorous take “Everything about you is a lie! That isnt’ your hair! Your eyes aren’t BLUE! You’re not that tall”

But to subscribe to “all” is something that I will obviously have to read much more and become familiar with all of the red pill teachings before I can even begin to truly joust in this thread. For now I have not enough to support a move in the other direction but believe me I am extremely open minded and if the dots not only connect but can also withstand inspection beyond the default.. yes I may be coming back with a different viewpoint and idea of women.

That being said I have a question… IS there such a woman (by red pill quantification) who’s “severity” or degree of, is so slight that like Azimov’s robot, one cannot tell the difference? (between a non-applicable candidate and a typical red pill woman who is just too subtle to detect)

I figure at that point what would really be the difference? I wouldn’t be subject to “bullshit” etc.. either way.

Keep in mind, my objective isn’t an LTR or the conventional comforts classic romance portrays. I am realistic in that the environment (again my driving point. the gap I speak of) plays an important part to the outcome and the evolution of any given subject (females in this case) and since I am in the US, hunting for something that does not exist or if found cannot be sustained in our climate is futile anyhow.

It is premature of me to have engaged but it is an enthralling discussion so I caved.. My apologies to all.

KM, I hear you bro. AWALT is a hard pill to swallow. What you have to understand is that women and men perceive the world differently. People intuitively understand this. Seeing how differently my son and daughter perceive the world reinforced this view. To my son, the world is stuff, to my daughter, the world is people. My daughter sees emotions, my son evidence. The older we get, the more we are Jedi mind tricked by culture based upon gender exceptions to ignore male and female differences. It’s really this simple:

Men were designed to survive by manipulating the world, women were designed to survive by manipulating men.

Yeah that was really where I was shelving it. We AGREE on that there ARE differences and even what the differences entail. Where I disagree is what the pill does with those differences or says about the women’s composition across the board. The metaphore I used explaining using women’s traits [differences] to coat generically over all of them is something I can’t subscribe to. Even if it feels comfortable or seems logical, it’s a line of thinking that is very dangerous. (hence use of “prejudice”, etc) One thing both sexes have in common is free will. That’s why I used the rape analogy. By biology alone women could cite us all as callused emotionless date rapists… but free will makes the “ALL MEN” part an impossibility. Just like same sex preference. To some it’s a problem they wish to resolve to others it’s who they are. Some think it’s purely environmental (a choice) and others feel it’s purely biological, genetic. Homosexuality is nothing more than a gender(less) based behavior or personality.. just as “man” or “woman” from the standpoint of social and sexual interaction procloaims.. YES their point of origin is different but hopefully my hard line is more clear as to the why… It’s not a “I am right” or “I need to convince my point is better” It’s more of, “I work this way in drawing stark conclusions and there is too much absent to make this large of a change”

I am FULLY aware of the red pill code and reasons and really do not disagree at all for the most part.. just this one point of “all”… Again, there is more for me to read and discover so it’s subject to change obviously. Maybe I am just missing some info and that’s all.. I am 50/50 on my speculation as to if I will get that missing data or not.

Also keep in mind, if I’d only had a few partners or so, I wouldn’t even have posted in here. Personal front row experience is why I did. All women may have this “setback” or means of existence but not every one chooses to live that way. Their free will objects and says “I am not rolling like that” hence my homosexual reference. It defies the biological design of procreation yet there it is, they willfully (or not depending on whom) are acting against their born makeup… Can a woman not do this?

Free will exists…. Absolutely. The gay exception exists as well. Exceptions exist. You shouldn’t look for exceptions and use it to create a philosophy. You should look to commonalities.

Red Pill is a utilitarian sexual strategy. Look to the most effective way to get your desired outcome. In my experience, 90%+ of women respond favorably to a direct and decisive masculine man. This is all about what makes pussies wet and getting our dicks wet. If you play to the 90%+ of women you will be more successful than if you play to the 10%-. Not to mention, taking women out if the equation, being a direct and decisive masculine man is a very fulfilling and natural way to live.

I feel that’s counter intuitive to the direction from which I came. I am not here for the acquisition of sexual conquests. I’ve already refined a methodology that is more than adequate for my life. My friend had described red pill as more than just “how to get laid” so perhaps that is my failing entirely. If I were under a false impression it served a more profound purpose, than that would explain a lot about the gap..

I can say that if it IS for that purpose alone, it is quite a lot of data and structure… probably more than what would be required unless the user is especially handicapped in this area. Not that having an abundance is at all a bad thing. it’s impressive and refreshing to see.

I will have to talk to Doug because he really made it out to be about more than scoring.

It helps quite a bit though in understanding certain concrete positions. If your aim was to have the highest success rate, improve yourself, and wake up to a lot of the dupe that is going on.. this is the best path to execute that success. It also explains “no LTR” as that only increases your administrative overhead, risk, and weakens your leverage and ability to mitigate risk.

You can’t get into a car wreck if you aren’t in a car. You cannot suffer the negative impact of the 90% if you do not enter an LTR with them.

So in all there really is no debate about variance and that it’s not 100% it’s 90%. It’s just a matter of why seek the 10% [this forum’s policy] whereas I am of the school, be equipped to engage the 90% congruent to their structure and be equipped to engage the 10% germane to theirs as well… Personally since what the 90% offers, I have little interest even if moderately buffered with leverage and tactical superiority. I am masculine, I am decisive, I am not a slave to the will of others, male or female. I simply maintain a distance outside of striking range and only allow that to change based on confirmation of the opposite.

>thanks again and sorry if this seems like stalking, but I really enjoy your writing.

Glad to have you as a reader.

>why is it that logic is automatically of more value than emotion? Is it valid to use logic to determine that (even assuming you could)?

Both logic and emotion are subjective, but logic is more objective than emotion, and therefore, more reliable. Logic in and of itself is technically objective, it is pure as an abstract system, but because we are beings “tainted” with emotion, when we attempt to utilise logic we infuse our emotion into our logic contaminating it with subjectivity and thus agenda, which leads to fallacy. That’s why in fields of scientific research, objectivity, neutrality and impartiality are of the highest intellectual priority. Of course, due to politics and how funding is used to control what gets researched and for what agenda, this isn’t the case, but in a idealised world where funding was not economically weaponised as it is, this would be the way research worked. Whilst the free market dictates to academia, academia will pander to the needs of corporations to get funding. Whilst the government dictates a specific ideological dogma to academia (eg: multiculturalism, feminism, egalitarianism etc) then academia will set out to conduct studies which support rather than disagree with these views in order to secure funding.

Emotion is not reliable or predictable, logic, to a large degree, is. Not all logic is the same, there are many kinds of logic, and philosophers have attempted to dissect the different kinds of logic (inductive, deductive, logical fallacies etc) even though there are internal elements affecting it, it’s extrinsic in nature. Emotion on the other hand is simply whatever one feels in the moment. Emotion is primal, an animal instinct. Logic is a function of higher-thinking. A dog, for example, cannot logic as well as a human, because it lacks the higher reasoning capacity. Dogs operate almost entirely on instinct which acts off reaction to stimulus controlled by a biologically selected-for hard-wired system of morality, eg: “don’t steal my food, don’t hurt my puppies etc.” Outside of that, a dog has zero to minimal system of thought. If they did, they could invent like humans do. In that regard logic outside “primal logic” aka “instinct” or “the logic of instinct” is unique to humans, particularly men, and it’s logic which allows for the very platform we communicate on now and the high civilization we enjoy today. No amount of emotion in the world will create a civilization. Logic could, without emotion, “just to see.” Although one could certainly argue you may need to eradicate all emotions except curiosity to give logic the kick in the ass it needs to conduct experiments at all.

Emotion is fleeting and intrinsic. Emotion is useful in regulated doses to a degree, but in a way far different from logic. It’s not that emotion isn’t useful, but that it is less useful. Emotion is also far more dangerous than logic because it has a higher capacity to psychologically incapacitate somebody. Emotion drives people to logic in detrimental ways that bring about suicide, crime, self-harm etc. Logic without emotion leads to similar outcomes with far less frequency. There is very little one can learn about the world with emotion alone. Emotion normally acts as a trigger for logic and gives logic an agenda or purpose. The problems arise when there is far too much emotion and not enough logic (and this is common, particularly with women, who seem to lack emotional discipline.) It’s important to conserve a productive ratio of logic-to-emotion. Whatever that ratio may be, I am unsure of – perhaps it is something that warrants more research by the academic community.

Logic relies on observable facts and chains of reasoning which can be demonstrated. Evidence is a proof, which is a form of logic. Mathematics is a man-made system of symbols used to represent the logic of quantity. Anything that extrinsically supports the premise of another needs logic to do so. You cannot emote that a gun with a bullet missing was used to kill a person, you use deductive reasoning and probability to deduce that, which are forms of logic. When you see the gun and you emote, you feel curiosity (which may activate logic as a trigger emotion) or you may feel fear (stay away from that gun!) but emotion in and of itself won’t help you solve a mystery. Mystery is simply the absence of rational explanation. Mystery is an emotional word. If you translate mystery from “emotive” to “logical” you end up with the word inconclusive.

Emotion commands how you feel/your state of being and occasionally causes you to behave in ways which may or may not benefit you. For example: if most men acted on the aggressive impulses they feel, they’d all be locked up. Emotion, at times, must be suppressed/channelled/redirected to be used productively. Men tend to be better at this, although are far from perfect at it (they are human after all) women comparatively appear less disciplined in controlling their emotions and tend to have involuntary outbursts in far more marked frequency.

Emotion can be useful, but it is also far more volatile and harmful for the individual. Emotion is like nuclear energy, very powerful, but if you lose containment it fucks everything up. Logic is more akin to renewable energy, it tends not to harm anybody and if it did, it would do so very slowly over a long period of time, probably via the development of a non-pragmatic ideology which actualises a very specific chain of reasoning and creates a narrative around said reasoning to bring about a cult of logically demonstrable beliefs (one could argue that this is what the red pill philosophy is.)

The logical equivalent of depression is “analysis paralysis.” In so much that both cause you to do nothing or become unproductive. The equivalent of negative emotions would be faulty logic, but even if we look purely at positive emotions vs. productive/helpful logic, it becomes apparent that logic has far more application than emotion. Emotion’s highest function is creating a state of happiness. Logic’s highest function is understanding, discovery and systemising. Emotion can’t build civilization. It can give you a reason to build civilization, but it’s the wrong tool for creation, it can’t create anything alone, it needs logic to create anything worthwhile. I could go on for ages, there are a vast multitude of reasons for why logic is superior to emotion, and emotion is superior to logic in some ways too, but holistically speaking on the whole – logic wins. I think men personally prefer logic because they value reliability, stability and what is measurable. Men like to be able to understand and measure things. Men like problem solving. Women tend not to obsess or really even care so much about such things. The majority of women adopt a much simpler approach to life. If it feels good, it’s good (even if it’s morally bad or logically foolish) and if it feels bad, it’s bad (even if it’s morally or logically intelligent.) Again, morality is a system of rational psychological governance to instil order in a species that is made inherently chaotic due to the ferocity of emotion. As for rationalisation, that’s emotion in logic’s clothing. It’s pseudo-logic, emotion using logic to justify itself.

Empiricist philosophy (the basis for the scientific method) can elucidate and give a far more comprehensive view of the kind of ideas I’m trying to communicate. Check out this Wikipedia page:

I’m afraid my original question was misframed – I should have said ‘why do you think reason is higher than emotion’? You seem to recognize that there is a logic to instinct and perhaps you might grant that there may be a logic to emotion too? After all much of your work on this blog seems to be an analysis of male and female emotions. Given that male emotions follow logic (you seem to be saying that there’s a valid reason why men are angry, hurt etc.) can we grant that perhaps female ones do too?

Perhaps we can distinguish between logic as the linguistic and symbolic processing of reason (which you called ‘the higher reasoning capacity of humans’) versus logic in the old Greek sense of a structure or order underlying some phenomenon, such as the instincts of dogs. I think it is accepted scientific fact that complex mammalian emotions evolved out of more primal instincts (fight/ flight, reproductive etc.) Given all that, and the fact that our baseline (both males and females, in my experience) seems to be emotion, perhaps the most important task is to try to reveal any logic underlying emotions, to understand them better, and learn to work with them? Your blog contributes beautifully to that aim, in my opinion.

In an idealised world where psychology was not funded by markets we would have all learnt as much about our emotions and impulses as you clearly seem to have done and would be utilizing this to increase the generalized happiness of all. Psychology does this a little – for example the woman you described as Lucifer’s Daughter sounds Borderline Personality to me, and could be operating from a deep sense of insecurity, and not a malicious intention to control and manipulate. Unfortunately psychology stops there and simply prescribes pills – it does not teach individuals how to identify these insecurities in themselves and overcome them.

You are right that we cannot build civilizations with emotion, but we couldn’t have music with just reason, or if we did, we wouldn’t appreciate it so much without emotion. I’d rather have music than civilization – wouldn’t you?,

I am very familiar with empiricism, and I admire the work it has done pulling us out of the dark ages. I am also aware of the damage it has done, especially in psychology, where the subjective and felt aspect of emotion is denied (because of the inherent bias in academia for objectivity, evidence etc.) The fact is, with reason and empiricism alone we are not getting any happier. Not men, and not women either. We need more introspection.

You are right that emotion is dark and dangerous. Ever since Plato at least we have associated reason with the sun. But the fact is emotion stays there. Even if you try to suppress it -apart from the fact that this makes for a very dull life and character – emotions usually burst out sooner or later, often in one gigantic last moment of regret.

The ideal I think would be to reign in both reason and emotion like two horses pulling a carriage to wherever you want to go (Plato again). That way we could all be both both wise and happy.

Hi, I just got introduced to the red pill movement and it woke me up immediately. People were actually saying what I was thinking. I don’t agree with all of the ideals of the movement, but I definitely agree with most of the points you put forward.

A point I’d like to add is that men need to be logical and women need to be emotional. It is just their biology and simple common sense The man is built to work and lead the family. Leaders have more responsibility and a logical mindset is much better for leading as opposed to an emotional one. The man who runs the farm has to depend on cost/benefit analysis when deciding on buying land, seed, etc. Women can do this too, but most do not have the ability because they are simply not built to, which is why Fortune 500 CEOS are only about 5% female.

However, this is no reason to put down women. Their emotional thinking is necessary to society and without it civilization would be a mess. Women are emotional because they are the one raising the kids. They are the ones growing their children inside them for nine months and having them largely dependent on them. This natural nurturing ability is why women are the majority of nurses, teachers(especially in the younger grades) and waitresses. Any one in a nuclear family(my greatest blessing, three of my aunts had to do it alone and it shows.) can tell that the father-son relationship is vastly different than the mother-son one. When I was really little I was scared of sleeping in my room. It was my mother who offered to let me sleep with her for the night, exposing her nurturing nature, and my dad was mad and wanted me to learn to sleep on my own, exposing his logical nature. Both influences molded me into what I am today.

In short, I am a complementarian. Men and women are equal, but are different, and the man’s logical nature and the woman’s emotional nature need to be recognized rather than stigmatized. Single motherhood needs to be shamed again, not out of hatred but out of love. We need to have two parents, one male and one female, to raise successful children.

Also, read the Bible, it’s the most redpilled book that will ever be written and the basis for my beliefs on this. The principles described there have worked for thousands of years

I think there is a strong trend/tendency due to feminist propaganda to convince women that having a family/having kids with 1 man is oppressive or basically evil. The last few women I was in an LTR with were decidedly against having kids, and they were 28/29 years old, i.e. at the point where they should be thinking about having kids. To each their own but to me thats a deal-breaker. Not even just the practical reality of it but more the question of what kind of woman doesn’t want to raise children and have a family? As I get older I become more convicted that to be a complete man/woman/family you have to have kids (if you can). If a woman is physically incapable of having kids that’s another story, but for a fertile and naturally feminine woman to shun having children seems quite bizarre and unnatural to me.

Points 1 and 4 are contradictory. You suggest that women should be economically provided for and that they shouldn’t be respected for having a career, then you say that inequality stems from differences in wealth..?

The inconsistency also suggests point 2 might not be that watertight either.

Point 1 and 4 are not contradictory as far as I can tell. If you can point out which specific segments within the points you deem as contradictory, I can analyse them, concede the point or rationally reconcile the seemingly at odd points for you (as in that instance, the problem is your interpretation of the point and not the point itself.)

>You suggest that women should be economically provided for and that they shouldn’t be respected for having a career, then you say that inequality stems from differences in wealth..?

A woman’s career promotes wealth inequality – as she will never be expected to provide for a family (an adult and a child) like a man would. You can make many claims about women being breadwinners (typically single mother households where a man is not in receipt of the wealth of a woman’s labour or expertise) but the “fact” remains that, women do not value men who are less successful than them, so successful pairings tend to occur when the woman earns less than her partner. High-earning women = bad for the nuclear family on a macro scale.

Say women had 80% of high earning jobs and men only had 20% (sadly plausible in the future dominated by a service economy where there are more females in higher education than men.) 20% of those high earning women would marry all the high earning men. The women left would either: stay single, spending their money on themselves and not spreading wealth by marrying down, or, have a failed relationship with a low earning man, but not before keeping his sperm/having a child and raising it alone. In that instance, the low earning man is middle class for a few years (in terms of wealth rather than profession,) before he is demoted back to the working class. In a long marriage where the male is breadwinner, the financially dependent partner does not lose their social mobility.

Effectively, you have drawn the false conclusion that women earning more = higher social equality. But in fact, it has lead to the opposite, quite simply due to women’s dating/attraction preferences. A man with a yearly income of £100,000 can be attracted to a pretty woman who earns £10,000 a year, marry her and effectively bring her up to the upper middle class. A woman with a yearly income of £100,000 will not find (bar exceptions) a man who earns £10,000 a year very attractive. She will not marry him, she will not spread wealth. She will look to marry the same man who earned £100,000, who otherwise could have married the lady who earned £10,000. So as you can see there is a compounding effect in play.

So you have two high wage earners staying together, the high-earning women has a job a man otherwise could have (which would allow said man to provide for a low-earning woman,) and said high-earning woman is married to a high-earning man who otherwise would have redistributed wealth by marrying a low earning woman. So effectively, whenever two high-earners mate with each other, two low-earners are deprived a potential mate that would have made them middle class. Yes, the middle class was formed on the back of a one high-earner/one low-earner (housekeeper) household. The middle class is disappearing, along with the nuclear family, due to female education. Naturally, on something of a tangent, birthrates have suffered too (it’s a wide, colourful picture.)

Now as outlandish as this may initially sound, please strongly consider the point. This is something that has been observed in both economics and sociology (not that I am particularly a fan of the social sciences due to the amount of ideological dogma that makes up their academic culture, but nevertheless this point seems cogent and is backed by data.) Women earning more correlates with a gap in household wealth. Cause is not correlation, but let’s say the cause and correlation are sharing a relationship – this means women who earn a lot do not as evenly redistribute their disproportionately high incomes through mate pairing as men do.

To make that point even more condensed:

-Pre-feminism you had a high-earner and a low-earner, women marrying up, men marrying down. This created the middle class.

-Post-feminism you have this to a lesser degree of frequency, but you also have many high earning career women who will only marry high earning men (they don’t marry down, much.) You also have more low earning men marrying low earning women. The remainder of women won’t pair with the remaining men because those men don’t make enough (one could argue, pushed out of university places by affirmative action policies, and subsequently, jobs, as well as the outsourcing of manufacturing) however those additional factors are somewhat redundant in describing the phenomenon for what it is. Accounting for those, you will find this: women date up or across, men date date down or across. Hence: highly educated men are better vehicles for wealth redistribution, highly educated women, for wealth consolidation.

Also, let us be clear: a man’s profession means a lot to a woman in matters of attraction. Most men would care not how much money a woman makes to be attracted to her. This is why you have “gold diggers” marrying rich men, but very rarely do you have high-achieving women marrying poor men. They may date them in youth as they are sufficiently exciting, but they never settle down with them at the family stage.

As for point 2, it’s impossible to prove scientifically. One simply makes social observations over the period of their life and formulates deductions based on the frequency of what they’re trying to identify. If you began today observing for instances of neuroticism in those around you and did so for a year – I would expect you would find women were more commonly neurotic, expressing more instances where composure was lost (more outbursts and displays of anger/fear/sadness etc.) I am of course open to the idea that women are not emotional per se, but simply have an inferior capacity to handle stress, and so effectively lose control more often. Although one must be prudent in distinguishing between a hard innate preference (choosing to be emotional,) and a capacity to keep composure in social situations (being able to resist the urge to act upon emotions you don’t wish to react to.)

When one is emotional beyond a certain point, their powers of reason are immensely vitiated. People who have taken estrogen have found to experience emotions more strongly, and to have uncontrolled bouts of strong emotion. This goes some way in aiding the “nature side” of why women’s rational capacity is less dominant, that is to say – despite an ability to be rational, the preference is to be emotional, and when this preference takes hold, the ability to be rational is in that moment: nullified. I would also argue finer less demonstrable tendencies based upon my own observations such as:

-Women are better at being pseudo-rational than men (using sophistry to make emotional arguments plausible – not including professional politicians)

-Women use logic to disguise an emotional preference (related to last point)

-Men use emotion to disguise a rational preference

-Men have better control over emotional displays than women do. Man’s weakness is anger. Women’s weakness is all emotion.

Of course these ideas aren’t provable in the strongest sense of the word, merely observed and sensed. Hence they are not fact, they are simple theories which often prove to be true (as the technology needed to confirm them as fact, or otherwise disprove these notions conclusively is lacking.) Good day.

“Feminists want the privileges of being women (privilege such as being economically provided for by a man, getting opportunities based on their beauty and men protecting them from physical harm regardless of their actions) as well as male privilege (authority/perceived dominance, respect for having a career, to not be judged so harshly on physical appearance etc.)”

This is an out-and-out lie. there are indeed women like this. They are not feminists. they are despicable women using the terms of feminism to, as the above states, gain all the pleasures of freedom and none of the responsibilities.
Get this straight. That is the absolute reverse of what feminism is about. Women like that..God I can hardly breathe when I hear them describe themselves as ‘strong’ and ‘fierce’…such as the woman who wrote the article “Why Women need Alpha Males”…in which she, although having made an independent success of her life, yearns to give it up, because working is hard, and be passive…because being a woman is about being passive.

Women like this are the ones who feed the trolls like you. They are, even more than the assholes like you, to blame for this state of affairs. Actual feminists, like me, do not want to be taken care of. We want the freedom men have..and the responsibilities..for life, for good. And legitimately, we ask only for what men have: control over our bodies, the right to our physical space and the right to equal pay and opportunity and to be judged by talent not looks. That doesnt mean we are ridiculous about this: beauty is always a potent force (Its interesting though that in the 70s, there was never any question that women over 30 were beautiful…now we see the insecure and frightened red pill males declaring that women somehow must stay under 25 and certainly must marry by then….)

And if we fall, and if we fail, we expect to do as men do, and handle it. I utterly despise the women who pretend they want to be free and then after a certain age, start looking to stay home and feed their faces…I despise the women who want to change beauty standards to fit themselves…and those who have redefined rape out of all sense and all reason…

These women are destroying feminism. It os they who have given rise to all these contemptible MRA and PUA types…its is their bad manners and ugly mouths that have caused a wave of terrified men who want girls so young they havent learned to speak up…because those who do speak up say contradictory things along with ugly ones.

They have taken the once excellent Jezebel and ruined it. They have alienated men of goodwill..the men who saw that feminism was good for men too…sharing the burdens and giving men the chance to know their kids…and to see their female friends and family protected against unwanted pregnancy and rape..men who saw that feminism was going to mean sending daughters off to college to really fulfil their dreams, not just coming home married at 19..good men, who were all for it and fighting the good fight with us…how many have been driven away by the rudeness, hypocrisy and total lack of character of these women?

Guys, please, please think twice. These women are just the loudest voices, that’s all. They have hijacked feminism. What they have done IS bad for men. It isnt good for anyone to claim that sexual misunderstandings and poor communication is rape….it isnt good to demand all kinds of legal changes in the workplace that just make it hostile for men…so that flirting becomes classified as assault..it isnt good for anyone for women to be so rude and unpleasant..look what’s happened! The men are being despicable back!

guys: you are better than this. Take some thought. Find the women who still bear the torch for real feminism: who want to share a life with you, not in control of you; who want to ALWAYS share the burden, not just til they are bored; who know that you BOTH need to keep on top of your looks if it matters to you, though it might not; the women who want to share child-care so you can both enjoy your kids, not one be exhausted and one never there; and who know that RESPONSIBILITY IS FOR LIFE. Ask yourselves: what kind of world do you want for daughter? do you want her to grow up thinking that the only thing that matters is to be pretty? To think “If I cant create a boner, my life is over? I have no worth beyond my breasts, do I?” You know you love her more than that. You know you want her to be safe, free, happy and to fulfil all her talents. We have female surgeons, now, female engineers, architects, artists..everything. We can do it all…dont let these lousy lazy two-bit females wreck it all. Dont play their game.
Because dont you see? When you do this ‘red pill’ stuff, you think you are being so clever…but all you are doing is playing into the hands of these women…these pseudo-fems…they want men to be demonized, they want other women to see men as assholes, they want more absurd rape laws…you are simply helping them get everything they want.

I like the general tone of your post but my main comment is that I don’t think women can live like men and not become immensely less attractive to men as a result. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman wanting to carry and raise children (with more involvement from men than our society has promoted in the past, I’ll grant you that), and to me that is a more sustainable path for the future than having women and men both working 40 hour slave jobs and having their kids raised by someone else. I think you are more talking theory and less practicality. Just like having many sexual partners has a different effect on men than women (I agree with Red Pill assertion that having many sexual partners limits women’s ability to pair bond), women engaging in competitive and demanding work also effects them differently than it does men. It effects both men and women negatively in a sense, but I think men are a bit more able to handle it than women. Just some thoughts.

Fiona there is an inherent problem with your pleas. Look at my posts. I am certainly NOT a red pill subscriber but I am also not some victim or beta that is clueless. I got into a few volleys with the hardcore redpill disciples and I have found a few things. On the surface one would think redpill is nothing more than organized misogyny. The true core followers however do not adopt this mentality. So look at it as 25% are not some group of womanizing assholes.

I am not defending redpill in any way at all. Again see all of my previous posts. I think there ARE salient points to the redpill doctrine. (i.e. Monk Mode) but one thing I posted which was “this cannot apply to EVERY woman” I got back “AWIAW” which is their philosophy is once a woman always a woman. A woman is a woman. I agree to some extent but I did get some confirmation from a woman in Europe (I had used European women vs. USA women to defend my position) that AWIAW just is too absolute.

My argument has always been (see Kahlil Gibran) that if you are only in it for the positive and can’t take the heartbreak or being duped then you might as well just hang your hat entirely on love and romance. Keep in mind LTR and love and romance are not things germane to the redpill core elements so already I am in violation…

This Fiona, is the reason for my reply.

We as two genders have to decide what exactly it is we want. I think the only “fits all females” thinking is (and only because I have yet to meet any woman absent this mindset) that women suffer at large is the whole “I want to have my cake and eat it too”

I don’t care who you are, straight or lesbian, rich or poor.. if you have a female brain and were born with a female reproductive system, you are a 100% guarantee to have this line of thinking.

For some unknown reason to myself every woman I have encountered simply does not understand the concept of math in a sense of having and consuming. I don’t get it but it’s 100% true. Sure I’ve only met a couple thousand women and this cannot be representative of them all but frankly you’d think on probability alone I’d meet one who thinks more realistically. I’ve come close. Typically they are very alpha, in positions of corporate power and extremely cold people. EVEN THEY are subject to this.

I will give you an example.
I want the perfect man and want him dedicated to only me… but I want to have fun and flirt once and a while…

This is impossible. No man fitting that description will ever bother with a woman who is content with other men in their lives.

You just cannot fathom that possibility. I will agree it is a greatly optimistic way of thinking but it’s wholly unrealistic.

So I think where redpill comes from is a more selfish take on extroverted suppositions.
Maybe for some it’s a method of protection, others conquest, etc… but it’s about self.

I work with a completely different philosophy. The most discouraging observation I’ve made so far is that even the best candidates, when they have the man of their liking or meets the description for their list of needs, they eventually shit on him because he’s not alpha enough or exciting enough.. or they simply seek other men to fill the needs he isn’t providing.

I really wish this wasn’t the case. Women are far more casual about their sexuality and the line between flirt and professional but much more prudent when it comes to actual sex.

Example: A librarian will flirt with a man if she wants. She however will be extremely selective regarding who she has sex with. Yes there are women who are casual with sex but they are obvious and vulgar to men worth a go…. To even the pragmatic this invites issues.

You in your post even observed this duality. Just carry it to all things in life. That is women at least a part of. It may not be with wants or needs, it may not be with men.. but the concept of it being possible to hold your piece of cake, eat it, and still be holding it afterward is a plausible thought by all women…

This is why in business you pay more for clothes, you operate with a sale/coupon methodology. The man is merely concerned with two things. What is the object I am getting, what is the final dollar amount I am handing the clerk. If a woman sees “75% off all swim wear” they don’t bother to ask “75% off of what amount?” So if I sell a $28 bathing suit costing me $8 for $49.99 at 75% off… I think you get the point…

It plays on the “I can’t afford this but I can buy it” allowance in thinking because of the cake and eat brainwork.

Now take this to men and women and roles and positions in society.

If you could simply make the calculation that
1)men aren’t women, women are not men
2)it would be foolish for a man to live as a woman or a woman to live as a man
3)I am a woman I must live as a woman.

Once you get what I have which is by your own admission what you want….
You ABANDON ALL POSSIBILITY OF THE FORMER in regards to relationships and social standing. PERIOD. It’s IMPOSSIBLE.

Again I never met a woman who gets this. Once you spend the money it’s gone, you no longer have it for other uses…

In fact that’s the ONLY concept a woman understands is the absolute math of money. (or numbers.. math itself)

But the abstract math in life and choices.. they support the quantum anomaly theory.

You need to make a choice. Accept that you are a woman and what that means or reject it.
You are FREE to do either and nobody alive should ever impact that negatively.

Just know if you choose the latter and reject it… you REJECT ALL OF IT. PERIOD.
So kudos. Start a corporation. Lead the world. Take over all the banks. Become a billionaire. These are not mutually exclusive to men. You can have it all but just know you automatically GIVE UP what you left behind. YOU CANNOT HAVE BOTH.

how can I have a 80hr work week job AND be a stay at home dad? NOT POSSIBLE.

You can adopt the nuclear family model of Dad works, mom cooks and handles the kids
Or you can take this model today of being the bread winner.

I was married to someone who currently makes a lot of money and is a high level executive. The problem she had is that she made more than me and wanted to be home.

I am sorry but when you tell me you want to have your career and climb the ladder but then when it becomes your responsibility to handle the storm or make the tough choices since you provide the bulk of income… you simply put it on me? Double Standard.

I know my ex wife isn’t the example for every woman but I see this way more than I don’t.
If she would have made room for me as the head of household, allowed me to pursue the lifestyle she demanded and SUPPORTED me in that endeavor, we’d have made it.

But she wanted to sit in the driver’s seat. JUST up until the point she was about to crash into a brick wall. THEN it was okay for me to sit there, crash and take the blame for everything.

This his how all females work from my limited understanding and exposure. I’ve not made a case study in my life or conducted mass relationship experiments. I have had my share of relationships have met a lot of women professionally or otherwise and I am very observant. I also here a LOT from all of them about their woes and men etc…

The unanimous trait is cake and eat thinking. You get rid of that.. you will instantly repair the dilemma you face.

Also, you should be pleading with women not us. It’s up to us men to do something about the rape issue.. WE need to as a gender step up and flush out the bad men out there. We need to change as a gender and be more sensitive to women’s rights in the bedroom… You put the problem on us.

So if there is a problem with women doing bad or whatever or ruining it for the rest of the women, the gender is responsible for itself.

I am not trying to flame here or be harsh, I am just pointing out two fundamental items that must be addressed before any of us can discuss higher level things like formats of gender roles or “equality”

Now don’t get me wrong… I do understand where you are coming from when you say that you want independence and want to share yourself with an equally independent person. Just know there are some things neither of us can abandon based on our gender. It is better to marry our place rather than fight it. Trust me on that.

What you briefly painted is really just age old Man and Woman together convention.
It was always that way. Once we introduced society (Egypt~3,000/4,000 years ago) we had money, tyranny, slavery… this violated the sanctity of man/woman existence.

So now that we live IN this… we must either choose to abandon this social way of existing so that we have an environment germane to your thoughts and wishes or we have to accommodate the environment we live in by adjusting our existence as couples.

It’s very far gone today and close to impossible to really “fix” but the best any one man or woman can do is to adopt a SOUND philosophy and live with a methodology that best suits BOTH of their needs.

Think of it this way:
1)Don’t steal. If I do not steal I will not go to jail for theft
2)Always thank. If I always show gratitude I will never be cast as ungrateful.
etc. etc…

But instead of things for yourself use examples for both of you.

Some women seek romance by creating an expectation in their head.
“If he comes home with flowers tonight I will be so pleased. Getting that without asking is so romantic”

This is bad.

Guys do this too
“If she wakes me up with fellatio, she’s really into me. I will keep her for good!”

again BAD.

There is nothing unromantic telling your mate these are things you want, need, expect.

It is really only an expectation when you do not convey or you punish for not receiving.

This is a conditional way of relating to the person and it’s a promise for ending things.

I roll with this:
1)Be true to yourself. Do not lie to yourself. Be honest. ALWAYS
2)Be this way toward others
3)Never let one person change how you treat the next, EVER
4)Do not expect to meet Mr./Mrs. Right. Merely share your desires. You will certainly meet plenty of people who share the same.
5)If you are in a relationship, always have a routine conversation of maintenance. even if everything is perfect and great.

(example: Use your anniversary. Have a great day and evening and morning. The following day have your couple anniversary conversation where the objective is to communicate anything openly that may require the other person’s thoughts or attention on any matter)

I am not not saying this fixes everything but you can develop something that works for you.
I think we’ve gone too far down the slope for both genders to be repaired fully.

So now we are forced to act as individuals. I personally never subscribe to what is being fed to me… Be it policy in the workplace or what have you. (I actually never date coworkers. even if there was no such thing legally as sexual harassment, I’d never ask out a coworker. Bad idea, just as bad idea is to getting involved with a female room mate. )

I simply live my life as a man. How I see a man’s life is to be lived. I share this information to anyone who is interested. The key thing is I do live it on MY terms.

When it comes to relationships, I am forthcoming and abundantly CLEAR on my views and ideas of man/woman relationships. A woman either hears this and walks or she is interested.

I cannot speak for redpill b/c I don’t know if the method of operation is veiled from the woman or if it is shared.

I can tell you this, sure I am open to a woman being dishonest and possibly hurting me but if you think that small part of dating is going to discourage me then you don’t know me.

I also race on the track and wrecking out and possibly being paralyzed or dead is not enough to stop me. So some woman fucking my best friend isn’t even going to come close to making me flinch. I just see her as a whore and move on.

Why this isn’t acceptable I don’t understand. Too many people today are all about brevity and comfort. There is a lot in life that they will do despite the risks or costs but with this thing here… it’s like you’re asking them to give up a body part or something… they just won’t go there.

In point 22 you mentioned “have no real deeper purpose or direction in life”.
can you elaborate more on this topic?i know this topic may deserve a whole article of it is own so if it is the case,please make it happen.

as much as I enjoy your writing, I think it is red pill philosophy for women. I don’t know about its value to the male portion of the population and I am sure you didn’t write it with us women in mind as benefactors from it, but it certainly is an eye opener to us women… a definite must- read:)

Having read all stuff in the original post and seeing how much of bullshit we, men, have to go through for the golden vagina, I say: fuck it. Working very hard (whether its financial work, emotional work, intellectual work, etc. etc. etc.) doesnt make me happy, and the loss of happiness that I experience working hard and putting up with all that crap just for the sake of getting women is not substituted by the actuall getting of women.

I’d rather work 4 hours per day, live in cheap 1 bedroom apartment, hang out with friends while playing video games and drinking beer, and, when I want to fuck, just do it with a Real Doll. This lifestyle is… easier. And easy is good.

I’ve been blind all this time treating women equally as men in terms they understand logically and well explained arguments!!! I’m in a relationship with a BPD women, or at least I think that, and I have been going crazy to know what is going on, first with her, then with me, accepting she cheating and lying to me, making me think I was the selfish MTHRFCKR, accepting everything and thinking her reactions are just a response of my selfishness and the fact that I have a doughter and my poor girlfriend deserves some guy with no other attachment that will make her feel like a real priority. I have tried everything to show her she is also a priority, cut my good friendship with my doughter’s mother, distancing myself from friends and sports (not to mention, obviously parties) just to show her she is important to me, and it doesn’t matter, once a week I get all the shit tests and I always crash into the stupid game of arguing with good real facts and arguments, always loosing to the fact, that I’m “always like this” “If I’m not happy what am I doing with her” and all this stuff. Prevoiusly I thought looking for help in internet was lame, but as I said, I was blind!!!!!! In just few weeks I have opened my knowledge about women and understand I have to react different and work my inner respect that I have partially lost because I have stoped doing things that I loved and feeling all the time in alert for her approval and care!!!!

I love my GF and I want to really help her, but I dont think I can do much more than just being a nice guy and behaving like a gentlemen with her, so she knows there are good people and dont settle for anything less after I’m gone, coz I think I will be gone in short time, It will brake my heart but heal my mind and economy 😉

I just wanted to let you know I enjoy your blog and I’m a MGHOW. I don’t care about women and you would probably think I’m a loser but I still enjoy reading your observations. You focus on fact, whereas most pua types brag about how much time they’ve burnt through chasing women and somehow I’m the loser for having different priorities. We all respond to the red pill differently and I don’t see the point in taking an elitist attitude.

Just to clarify my “e-political position,” I’ve nothing against MGTOWs. None in the slightest. Sure I don’t think it’s good for civilization that men begin to drop out en masse, but at the end of the day, I understand it completely.

Good to hear. It was an ass-umption on my part. I’ve just run into so many game blogs that despise mgtow or even MRA. You’d think that more people would be happy that there are more people taking the red pill, but unfortunately not. I find game and Machiavellian stuff interesting and enjoy reading a different perspective, so I occasionally read your blog.

I recently came across this website being interested in Machiavellianism. But this page, to me seems like it promotes that women do not like sex while in pickup(which I used to study) I found that women like sex(a blind spot? or something that they like but use by holding it?). Now there are good insights that cleared up some confusions that were not cleared in pickup community. A bit of hate feeling also came towards women while reading this. Now I understand that women cannot/will not love me. They will not complete me as there is nothing to complete me. I had this lack/desire for women to seek love,completion and happiness. But I realized that it doesn’t come and it is supposed to be my default state. I am already complete. Now what is the course of doing pickup?

The hate feeling was an implication of trying hard to believe in the truth. For reality was too unpleasant. I indulge in self-delusion too sometimes. Any help? Also by not being too powerful or drawing attention(isolation) can you avoid the power game? I am reading 48 laws of power and I really like it. It says you cannot avoid the power game.

this is dope men!have to follow esp chapter 21 on single mothers breeding weak men…honestly been mentally and socially depressed encasing myself in solitude and self underestimation.leaving in an heart unbearable condition where I have to seek composure in movies,games,porn and sadly religion.I always like running away from reality of life but reading your blog I am painfully swallowing the red pill.hail to the site.

This so profoundly resonates with me. The fact that women are actually more attuned to be praised in spite of their utter weaknesses and the fact that men are more likely to be ostracized for exhibiting “femininity” or the slightest manifestation of weakness show that it is indeed survival of the fittest. Natural selection. Equality does not exist in nature.
Time to fucking shatter the shackles

A man of unequal worth is condemned, and rightly so.’ (‘and rightly so’ is only good for the rhythm of the sentence; it’s not actually fair or nice or whatever. Perhaps it’s too Nietschean for me. And remember, lot of Red Pillers will be the rejected, like me.)

The Wall.

‘… often settling for men they would not give a look but a few short years before.’ [I feel you could add something here about the fact that she often has children with her at this point from an ‘alpha fucks’ marriage (the first husband now trading her in), and will grab at any passing, up-jumping beta-male, nay, gamma-male.’

Perhaps that all goes without saying, and it does interrupt the flow of the relevant chapter, but I thought it worth pointing out, as I’m from such an environment myself. Nevertheless, I will now defer to you on it- The Constitution on the whole is marvellous and I can’t wait for the book!

|||-imitable Aussie.

PS. Do you really want me to get niggly on technical points of grammar? You’re about right, and the language is always changing.

Women want male friends because they’re better company. More interesting, more entertaining, less crazy, less annoying – all of that good stuff.

As a man who was deeply in the friendzone, twice, I can tell you that these two sentences are inaccurate. It’s not about entertainment or being good company. It’s about filling a void she’s not getting from Chad.

In other words, “Women want male friends in order to use them for attention and favors they’re not getting from their lovers.” Chad almost never tells her how pretty she is, never listens to her go on and on about her issues, and almost never does things she wants. He simply fucks her then goes about his day. So what she’s not getting from him, she tries to make up for in a male friend.

I suppose an alternative could be “Women want male friends because they’re better company than other women”, and then citing a few examples of why other women make bad company. But I think it important to make very clear what women want from male friends, and why.

“A woman’s decisions are based on her current emotional state, not logic. Once overwhelmed by the feeling of the moment and riding on a tidal wave of emotion, even if an awareness of what is fair and rational remains intact in a woman, she shall opt to ignore it in favour of indulging “what feels right.”” you realize that anger is an emotion, right? And men make decisions off anger plentifully?

I am greatful for your work. You have shone a light that really luminates lots of areas that happened to be grey for me. Having been raised by a single mother, some areas in my life are as you said. This is a wake up call for me.
Though I wish you could shed more light on issues pertaining to how to save the said boys and young men from their mental and social inclination. No one chooses to grow up without a father, yet the world is in no short supply of male children who don’t know how or why the said world despises them so.
It would help a lot if some form of ‘red pill-save the boy from single mother’ prose was available.

Interesting article. What I have found is that as I have got older (I’m 35 year old male) I increasingly have more female friends. I genuinely enjoy their company and find them witty (they are generally not intellectually as curious as I am though). Admittedly most of the friendships have come out of my being attracted to them but them being unavailable (they have boyfriends). But now I genuinely enjoy their company; there is no secret desire to mate them as the basis of the friendship. But there are advantages to having female friends – it gives one more of a social standing and access to more groups.

Interestingly though I do find that over time the level of contact reverses; at the beginning I’m more invested in the relationship and contact them more but over time as friendship develops they contact me more.

I would add that I am dating two girls at the moment and have about 4 more “on the go”.

I’m looking to settle down soon but what I’m really trying to do is find the best possible mate for me (I’m also divorced with a daughter).

I’m quite youthful in my view of life (I spend my free time working on film scripts or math/programming! when I’m not socialising).

Salary /looks wise I’m probably Alpha – but I’m fairly dreamy/creative in my personality and happy to be that way rather than do the tough guy act (which would make me miserable). Im confident enough to play the fool sometimes and be a nice guy – and I do quite well with women.

My point is, is that there is more than one way, more than one strategy to be successful in life and with women. Life is not a set of rules to rigidly follow.

A women who intentionally bites the hand that feeds and provides for her children is someone who is not stable.
The insurance company of the barristers society and the judiciary committy insure me the Barr and the Bench are stable. Since the Barr and the Bench have repeatedly laid culpability on the shoulders of the stable then it is the Barr and the Bench who should be held accountable for lack of regard for children. Besides, it clearly states, in the code of ethics of the barristers society, that their Family professionals are not allowed to have regard for children. Imagine that! I thought family was all about children!

Our government sanctions the Barr rewarding it with self regulation. Since, we the people, are the government, it is us who allow these atrocities toward our innocent children to continue . It’s time to stand up and insist our government put an end to the child abusive self regulation of the barristers society. Call your MP and your local government officials and convince your friends to do the same. Fight for our children’s rights for two Functional parents.

A woman’s power play rests on the cunning use of two cards. Depending on how she feels about a particular situation involving her or womankind, she will play either the sexist victim card or the empowered, entitled feminist card after evaluating which best works to her advantage. Simultaneously, the female denies the male the opportunity to play a similar game by treating the weak man who complains or plays the victim card with contempt, shaming the man who tries to play the entitlement card as immature, and demonizing the powerful man who will not play to her terms.

What is considered empowering and qualifying to one woman may be sexist and victimizing to another, and to the same woman, what is empowering in a moment of elation may become oppressing in a moment of depression. Whether feminist or traditional, left or right, women remain women always.

Biology drives the female to be driven away by weak, immature and awkward men and the conditioning of feminism drives them away from dominant and the strong.

A typical woman’s understanding of the male mind and it’s real needs is as vague as a man’s understanding of menstrual periods and labour pain and that of feminists especially so. The difference is that the female will never admit to or realize this lacuna.

A man expects to reward himself as he sees fit for his job well done while a female expects the man to reward her as per her subconscious, unspoken desire for her job well done.

The majority of women’s oppression and shaming in reality, comes from other women of the herd following the crab in the bucket mentality and not from other men, although the feminist movement shall never admit this. A complicated mother in law – daughter in law relationship is the most egregious example of this phenomenon.This is clearly evident from the fact that women spend the overwhelming majority of their gossip discussing about their relationship with other women and only passing a few sentences about the men they are attracted to or involved with.

“And in case you think that ridiculous, feminists factor in things as benign as the economic value of housework, so not to do the same with female beauty or vulnerability is highly disingenuous if your goal is to economically quantify elements relevant to social equality.”

Don’t you mean “This is highly….”? I’m not native so could be wrong. Love reading you.

I have a renewed confidence in how awesome my dating life is going to be when I am soon single!

I have been the primary breadwinner (90+% of the incoming finances that keep the household functioning) for 14 of the last 16 years with my husband, 13 years of it married.

He is the emotional creative, feminine & irrational (liberal) and I am (was) the level-headed rational (conservative) so we had a reversal of roles and it worked for a while.

Then I got off the pill 18 months ago and my hormones naturalized. Suddenly I was more emotional and feminine, I now wear almost all dresses and skirts and I like it (before it was slacks or not very feminine skirts) and I care now about how I look. Hormones really do rule the world. And I now want a man, so I can more easily realize the femininity in me that has been suppressed since I got on the pill in my teen years, yet here I am with a girlie man who is emotional and irrational. It’s horrible.

Two women can’t be together – we need masculine and feminine.

I can’t wait to start dating again as I now know I will have no competition at all, fully understanding what you guys go through having gone through it myself.

Very interesting, full of truth (“Men have to work to be fuckable, women have to work to be likeable”, nothing could be more accurate than that), although there are more nuances in both men and women’s psychology that the red-pill swallowers sometimes tend to miss.
Some women will go to weak men since they want to fix them. It never lasts, ’cause once “fixed”, them men doesn’t have anything interesting anymore for the woman, and she leaves. It’s a kind of nurse syndrome.
That’s why it’s common to see a woman married to a strong, money-maker man and cheating on him with a romantic hopeless artist.

Some of this sounds like ignorance from a male perspective honestly, say for example “Women want male friends because they’re better company. More interesting, more entertaining, less crazy, less annoying – all of that good stuff.” are you sure that’s not your solipsism talking? Not denying that many women crave male friendship, but I seen many still prefer female friendships overall, younger women seem to be the ones who predominantly seek men just for friendships.

“Legitimate female friends, women you find unattractive and are interesting are rare, because most women have no personality.” you sure it’s not your definition of what constitute personality clouding your judgement here? Women will view men in a negative light because they don’t act in a feminine matter when it comes to socializing or have “pointless hobbies” and make fun of a man’s mid life crisis. This seems more like a case of seeing the other group as strange when we judge them with our own standards instead of looking at things objectively. What’s more, men will only see what a woman decides to show them, women are more honest among their female friends.

An intellectualized rationalization from immature men who are unable to figure out how to relate to women. Social withdrawal from women and self-neutering is probably most appropriate and the least of maladaptive responses. All this bitching about the opposite sex is also feminism, in the male form. Unbecoming.

I read this again one year later. “Most women have no personality” has to be one of my favourite bits.

Since both men and women have both masculine and feminine parts, I think we should get past this oversexualised darwinian bullshit. As Bjørk says, “Men can be a lot of things but with women, they always have to be feminine, feminine, feminine”.

How do you guys explain lesbianism? I couldn’t find it in the article. Why are many men sexually attracted to them?